您第一段所譯大致不差, 僅就最後一句回答, 第二段則全部試翻供參
But there is no man known to history nor can any be thought of so uncivilized as to be able to renounce the cooperation of his kind.
歷史未有記載或無人可以提供例證: 個人能夠不文明到擯棄他人合作的地步
But the definition must not be confined to states at one stage of development only; it must apply regardless of the stage which has been or ever will be attained. Moreover,the affirmation of such ends conceals the fact that the single object in organizing a state was to establish the sovereignty of some over the others,and that the results which necessarily followed were not foreseen, much lessintended;they cannot be referred to the intention of the founders who followed their own immediate advantage, as all men do. High above egoistic human efforts social development is the product of natural law.
但是, 定義不能侷限於國家發展中的某一個階段 ,
必須一體適用於不論是已經達成或尚未達成的階段
更有甚者, 確認這種目標隱含了一項事實:
組織一個國家的單一目標係建立主權,
必然招致未預見更非所企求的後果,
那些後果不能被視為開國者因利乘便 -- 因為那是人之常情
社會發展是自然法則的產物, 遠高於人類利己之圖
such ends 可能是某種 "結果" 也可能是 "目標", 得看前文
establish the sovereignty of some over the others 建立某些人士/團體/國家的主權而凌駕其他人士/團體/國家的主權, 這裡原句未明示 some 的後面是什麼, 或許避免硬翻較宜
followed their own immediate advantage 不見得是汲汲營利, 只表示遵照對他們最有利的方式去做, 譬如孫中山建國之後受軍閥所阻, 只能蹲在廣東一隅, 還飽受地頭蛇陳炯明騷擾, 所以才有 "聯俄容共" 的政策, 因為那對孫而言是最有利的, 絕不表示孫有意從蘇俄拿什麼私人好處
